About your Search

20130101
20130131
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)
? commissioner burden, commissioner hillis, moore and sugaya? >> commissioners first on your calendar are items proposed for continuance. i only have one item number 8 under your director's report, the planning commission policy on impinging product implementation is proposed for continuance to february 28, 2013. >> i have no speaker cards. >> did you want to make a comment to that at all? >> yeah, just that we would like a little more time to work on this to talk to some commissioners about this and need a few more weeks to refine that work. >> okay, thank you. is there any public comment on the item, single item proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioner moore? >> would we be scheduling a discussion item on it so it would have an introduction about the underlying policy or policy changes that we have a little bit more time to think about and including hearing other city departments like the control, anybody weigh in what kind of ramifications it has financially, all questions that are part of a broader discussion. >> we could do that if the president concurs, sure. >> commissioner su
roll. commission president fong, here, vice president, here, antonini, here, moore, here, sugaya, here. commissioners, first on your calendar consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1 at # 369 third avenue is proposed for continuance to january 24, 2013. item 2, case 2011-at 480 potrero avenue to march 21, 2013. on your calendar, under your regular calendar, 16,(a), b,(a) c for 2011-.00av and x there a request for a continuance. specific so you may want to consider that as well. >> president fong: is there any public comment on the two items, plus the third that was just added? potentially. >> good afternoon, president fong, members of the commission, i'm jim ruben. i'm here on the item where there's been a request for a continuance from supervisor kim's office. i was advised of that request yesterday directly from her office. i talked to a number of people, including some of you. we are not opposed to a continuance. we would like us to talk to some groups that have been identified late yesterday afternoon and we will do that. i'd like a short continuance as the calendar
. >> president fong: commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: excuse me, i hear you say, besides i think you're making a great pretion, it seems you're really understanding how this all comes together. you made more money than you spent is that correct? >> we're projecting we will take in more money than originally anticipated. >> commissioner moore: that's great. now you're asking because you will be making more money, to be allowed to spend some of that money on your own in order to stay on the course of making the money. >> we are requesting the authority to accept that additional money, that is not currently in our budget, and to be able to spend it. >> commissioner moore: so if you wouldn't be asking for the supplemental appropriation, and you would make the money, would that just automatically disappear? would it go #] somewhere, where somebody makes the money and doesn't give it back to you? >> so the way the budget process works is you have cash that comes in the door, but you have to have budget appropriation. so we have excess cash that's above and beyond what we assumed in the bud
. >> commissioner borden? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 6 to 1. there is nothing further, commissioners, on this calendar. you may adjourn. >> do we need a motion to adjourn this? >> no. >> commission is going to take about a five-minute break here and we'll come back with the regular calendar. >>please stand by; meeting in recess thursday, january 10th, 2013. please be advised that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. silence any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. if you're speaking on the agendized item, please fill out a speaker card and when speaking before the commission, speak directly into the microphone and please state your name for the record. those of you standing near the door i'm going to have to ask you to stand on the other side for fire safety reasons. at this time i'd like to take roll. commission president fong? >> here. >> commission vice pr
: is there additional public comment? seeing none, public comment portion is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: i'd like to put to the record that this is a mandatory discretionary review, and the issues, which the residential design team has addressed are those typically addressed in a mandatory discretionary review. i want to say that i think the review is extremely thorough, creative, and supportive of those ideas that are important to us as a commission. i want to comment taking it down from the top, the 15 foot setback from the street is something which this commission has asked the department to consistently implement. it's not 11 feet. it's not 12 feet. it's 15 feet where it occurs on the street side of a property which is larger than two stories, because this particular setback should not be seen from the front. so it's really not an issue to question, but just to accept because this commission has used this rule and over the years had the department strong implement the same 15 feet wherever that type of condition occurs. on the second one, regarding the garage door, that is als
. thank you. it lookses like a good project. >> commissioner moore. >>i think the restrictions to going into different uses [inaudible] and architect explained and i am comfortable moving this. >> commissioner hillis. >> i agree and i like the fact that we don't normally see second floor uses for office and we have dental offices where there is not a lot of retail. >> it's an active use. >> commissioner wu. >> could i just ask a question about the bmr unit. i see a two bedroom unit and one bedroom unit allocated for bmr's and the decision will be made later for rental or ownership according to the project sponsor. >> correct. >> thank you. and bmr's are they slated to be in the same building or different building? >> there are one requirement and the sponsor has that as a three bedroom unit. >> commissioner wu if i could clarify under the housing legislation 20% reduction triggers reduction of two to one and right now one unit because of prop c, correct, so there is only one affordable unit. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners there is a motion and a second to approve with condition
of this commission to the board of supervisors. >> second. >> commissioner moore did you have another comment? >> yes. talk about general plan compliance as well. >> just one final comment. i think it's also important i think for the commission that this is the first time that we've considered a historic district under the new historic preservation ordinance and i think it's also the first one the historic preservation commission has respected to the board of supervisors, so this say first for a couple of things. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> continue on that. it's the first time that it was in all of the market octavia plan and this subject came up for years and years and consistently repeated recommendations and comments by the community that we are supporting the nomination as described by commissioner sugaya and his motion. >> commissioner antonini. >> and i also want to thank the historic preservation commission and the staff for preparing the draft for duboce park landmark district designation went which is wonderful history to read and you learn a lot of things about san fr
comment? commissioners? commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: could you perhaps, on page 5, under division program -- work program administrative division, explain to me why there is a drop in personnel assigned to the commissions. you're going from four in 2013, to three in 14-15. >> commissioner, last -- in the current fiscal year, when we found out that linda was going to retire, we had -- we double budgeted that position. there was a second position in there that was 0923, manager two for those of you on the recruitment committee which is a topic of discussion. so there was a two and a four in there. and so this now reflects, with linda's retirement, the other position going away, and the staffing level going back to three. >> commissioner moore: thank you. appreciate that. for the director, and it's not as much budget, you mentioned -- do you see expression master plans for public owned sites, would you give us an example. that's kind of scary, actually. >> yeah, that word is probably not correct terminology. i apologize. the idea as i mentioned earlier we're working on these
antonini? >> present. >> commissioner borden? commissioner hillis? >> here. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first up is consideration of items proposed for continuance. i have one item under your regular calendar, item number 7, case no. 2012.1183tz, amendments to the planning code to establish the fillmore street neighborhood commercial district (board file no. 12-0814). it is proposed to be continued to april 4th, 2013. >> is there any public comment on the item proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner moore. >> welcome to supervisor [speaker not understood] district and i fully support the continuance. move to continue. >> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously +6 to -0. commissioners, that will place you on your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constit
units. >> okay, commissioner moore. >> i'm sorry, i should have taken my name off. >> commissioner wu. >> just to add one last thought on this conversation is that there is a policy difference here, which is that moh has to finance these units. so, in the example where the developer builds bmrs, the units come ready, however you want to say it. but the city is taking on more of the burden. i really agree we have to make sure it's economically correct. >> commissioner sugaya. commissioner antonini. >> well, on this issue of off-site land dedication, for years we've had a lot of affordable housing activists who have come forward and said, we really want this, particularly in the mission district. so, it's been created and it seems like the wrong forum, although it's worthy of discussion. this is not the time. when the policy is being formulated and approved, that's when the discussion should come forward and make sure it works out equitably and these are all valid comments since they're not being built right now, but itself a trade-off. again this is probably one of the reasons the proj
>> commissioner borderon. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously and places you have item 14 at 2895 san bruno avenue. where f -- request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon members of the planning commission. the project at 2895 san bruno avenue proposes to demolish the gas station and construct a new development of mix used buildings total of 10 dwellings units and retail spaces and second floor business professional service uses. the building will contain approximately 14,000 square feet and 40 feet in height. there have been a number of modifications to the project since publication of the materials. however these changes were interior. it doesn't affect the facade or the footprint of the parks spaces have increased from 10 to 15 and to address the neighborhood's concern about lack of parking and this change is interior again and not affect the facade or building envelope and bike spaces have increased also and interior and will not affect the exterior or
. >> commissioner moore. >> we will see if the public has any other items. >> we are calling them together. >> so the motion includes nine, 10, and 11. >> second. >> great. thank you. >> on that motion to approve items nine, 10 and 11 commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> aye. >> commissioner president fong. >> aye. >> that passes commissioners unanimously five to zero. >> next item. >> commissioners that places you on item 12 at 2121 19th avenue. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am mitchiel planning staff and this is located at 2121 19th avenue and between quintara and rivera street. it's a request for conditional use permit. through at&t this facility is the regular cellular antenna facility that we see most often and antennas on the roof top and equipment within ground floor area and location preference seven site because it's residential two and the height limit is 40 feets. just a few things to add in 1997 sprint was approved for a project at the site which they were approved for antennas on a very simila
's a motion. >> second. >> >> commissioner moore. >> i have been looking for the unit sizes, what they are now and what they would be when they're merged. the other thing i would like to ask, and that is a question for mr. crawford why isn't there a architect or engineer on the drawings which is typical for submittals? >> i believe mr. kaplan is the architect on this project. his name is on the application and on the plans. >> didn't he say he's not an architect. >> that's what he said. >> so there is no name of an architect or an engineer on this drawing. >> i will let mr. kaplan speak to that, but in the meantime -- well, it looks like it's -- the building is 1966 square feet. the units are divided fairly equally between the upper and lower floor so around a thousand square feet piece. >> and we have the total square footage. >> yeah, you will have a 2,000 square foot and i will let mr. kaplan speak about the architect. >> yeah, on the matter of the architect. my understanding of the code is the property owner is allowed to design the property if the structure is under 25 feet which this
bones, existing bones. and i still saw that basement is really set up for parking. commissioner moore. >> this commission spends years and years and years, nights and nights and nights on thursdays to develop policies surrounding the eastern neighborhoods including parking [speaker not understood] in transit corridors. i believe that it opens a door for a policy by which, depending on how you want to sell your project, you will find arguments that your project indeed deserves exceptions or considerations outside of what the rest of the folks have to adhere to. i think it has very, very questionable tone for how developers appear in front of this commission. i do think that this project has many other exceptions and exemptions it is asking for. these are important to consider. they don't [speaker not understood]. those have to be considered in addition to parking. rear yard, whatever they are, i believe that the parking issue with the staff recommendation for an already increase is what this commission should be supporting. >> commissioner antonini. >> it's always curious to me why we
moore. >> commissioner moore: it's difficult to get into this discussion without expressing appreciation for the effort, but i do think that many of the comments made by the public, somewhat reflect my own concerns. most and foremost i believe the words of planning department charter has to be changed. san francisco is the only city in california, is the only city and county which is a chartered city. just very unusual. in california that is i think -- legal reference. for this i think is an ideal statement, a manifesto of creed or of basic values in its application and presented to the public and the commission -- personally generic. and while i agree with many of the values expressed of how we conduct ourselves personally and professionally with respect to trust and consistency and those things there need to be references to what informs us in our actions relative to those values. and i would agree with ms. hestor with public records policies, the chartbo) r÷ itsel, charter amendments, the rules, and plan regulations that govern planning need to be referenced as a daily part of refere
? commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: ms. ms. rodgers. a very special element to it. just wanted to mention that. >> thank you for that. >> president fong: commissioner antonini. >> commissioner antonini: thank you. a couple of things i was interested in learning the twin peaks tavern allegedly the first of the bars with windows where you could look in. the first of the so-called fern bars because i thought ith&::úss henry -- it would be the late 60's early 70's. but on another note, i heard about the avalos legislation. and, now, i remember we've, on numerous occasions considered our policy on demolitions and reset the policy accordingly. so i don't understand why -- i guess its strfl administrative i don't know why the board of supervisors -- >> the clerk of the board has not transmitted the full ordinance to us yet but we will, in our analysis, review, as you said, we've done recent updates to our merger criteria and will review that history when we bring the ordinance before you. >> commissioner antonini: but we would presumably be the decision-making body on that if it's pl
, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to january 10, 2013. we have just learned that item 18 for case 2012.0928dd and d for 2000 20th street all drs have been withdrawn. the only action in your continuance calendar is for item 12, if you so wish. >> president fong: is there any public comment on item 12 for continuance. >> commissioner antonini: move to continue. >> the clerk: commission antonini, aye, borden, aye, hillis, aye, moore, aye, wu, aye. 7-0. consenticle considered to be retoon by the planning commission and will be acted on by a single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless the public requests in which case it will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. you have two item
but i will see what the other commissioners have to say. >> commissioner moore. >>i would like the commissioners to look at the parcel map to see that the dr requesters map is south from the proposed subject property. the reason i am saying this is it's about views and not light but about views and as much as i like to protect it the house in front of us today has made concessions that comes out of the san francisco neighborhood discussions [inaudible] portolla drive and you have stately homes and setback from the street and individually designed homes on large lots speak for themselves, kind of stately neighborhood . the fact that the proposed building primarily has relatively low ceiling heights for this building type is already a major concession to keeping the building not too imposing or impacting on adjoining properties and i assume they had the dr request's house in mind also. we also have the additional lot 37 where someone else in the future might be building. what i can tell it's a buildable lot. that's not part of the discussion here. i myself would agree with th
will withdraw the continuance. >> okay. >> okay. then the motion -- >> commissioner moore has a comment. >> i would like -- we have one registered architect here mr. jocelyn. i would like to ask you with the building designed in 61 what type of drawings would you expect as a registered architect and with dr and wouldn't the existing drawings at a minimum reflect what it is i oom not discussing the merging or not. that's not the issue for me. it's the type of drawings submitted and what type of open door it gives somebody to submit drawings for this type of approval. >> i have to state first i'm not a registered architect in california. i am registered in oregon so with that disclosure i would say for these purposes the kinds of drawings that are provided are not atypical for these processes and acceptable in the manner that was described. that it's not necessarily a requirement of a stamp in our code -- >> i know that. >> nor is it necessarily typical of the process for changes of this modest scale. it might be worth hearing a little more from the sponsor the extent about which an engin
? >> are you finished? >> i was going to say that in regards to what commissioner moore has said, if the commission feels more comfortable putting the action item on next week's calendar for the 7th, i mean, i'm only asking for an approval of what we're doing and what i described in general terms with the timetable, but not any action on any final selection process, and that's basically what i think we should have, some sort of consent along those lines but it doesn't have to be today. we can calendar it for next week if that's possible, it's up to the pleasure of the commission. >> okay. so, if -- unless i'm missing something sig kanlt, we sort of asked the sub-committee to go out, do performance work, and come back with a sub submit -- committee, i'm a little uncertain why we need to take an approval or take action on something that is not 100% solidified yet, it seems like it's going in that direction and maybe by the next meeting, we would have some concrete direction. >> might i suggest that we wait until that time in april, i think at this point, you know, there's a proces
on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner moore. >> commissioner moore: this is remarkably exciting, particularly having it presented. to hear your priorities, wonderful. i will remember a piece of architect that happens to be in china at the temple of heaven where there is indeed a wall which does exactly this, and it is amazing experience to all of a sudden walk in a quiet space, and your hearing voices, and you cannot even physically see the sounds. it's just a lovely experience where you are. there is a presence of people there, yet physically not there. he hadians, because you see them tracing celestial patterns, reminds you bringing the history plaza, together with the use of materials connecting us to the infrastructure. i think that just really thought provoking piece and i hope that there's somewhere in this area a little piece so people can read the complexity of what your doing. >> we do have the laudite approach, which is my approach, which is you can read it. i mean i don't use a qr code, but that neighborhood is twirt, it's all of these ver
. >> commissioner moore? >> move to approve. >> second. >> i'm sorry, the proper wording is not take dr and approve >> commissioners on that motion to not take dr and approve the project as proposed. (roll call ) so moved commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0. and puts you on your final item on your calendar, public comment -- have i have no speaker cards. >> is there any general public comment? if not, it's been a good year. >> thank you. >> it's been very productive. thank you everyone. and we'll see you next year. >> thank you. meeting adjourned. [ gavel ] >> it goes back to the 18 50s fisherman's wharf, meg's wharf which was the place in san francisco to enjoy yourself. eventually fisherman's wharf moved into youctionv to where the explore or yum is and it moved back up here. but in the 1950s, the port was coming out of world war ii, was trying to understand what container station was going to look like, and they commissioned a study that looked at the economic impact of the port to the city. * that sounds familiar, does continue, mr. mayor? and particularly to
Search Results 0 to 40 of about 41 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)